IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.77/09 (Filed on 04.06.2009) Between: Daniel. C.S, Dan & Company, College Road, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Czijy Chacko) ..... Complainant And: 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. 3. Asst. Engineer, -do. –do. 4. Sub Engineer in Charge, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties as Vide Con.No.13931 of Pathanamthitta Section. The complainant is regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite parties. On 25.5.09, the Asst. Executive Engineer inspected the premises and prepared a mahazar. In the mahazar it was stated that he is using 1980 watts connected load, which is higher than the sanctioned load. On the basis of this mahazar the Asst. Engineer issued a provisional bill for an amount of ` 9,466.54 to the complainant. According to the complainant he has not used unauthorised connected load and he is using the electricity sanctioned to him. The calculation done by the electrical authority is wrong and not as per the Electricity Act 2003. Therefore the complainant has filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to not disconnect the electrical connection till the disposal of the complainant and for directing the opposite parties to recheck the connected load connected to the complainant’s premises and to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost to the complainant. 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version on behalf of the other opposite parties also. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is a proprietor of a commercial firm in the name of Dan & Company and he is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. On 25.5.09, the Division Squad headed by the Asst. Executive Engineer inspected the premises of the complainant and detected that the complainant was using an unauthorised additional load of 1480 watts against the sanctioned load of 500 watts. He has prepared a mahazar in the presence of a complainant’s representative. On the basis of the site mahazar the provisional bill along with notice and calculation sheet served to the complainant. The inspection was conducted as per Sec.126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the calculation done is as per Sub Section 546 and Clause 27 A of the Electricity Act. As per Sec.126(3) of Electricity Act if any person is aggrieved while serving notice under Sub Section (2) shall be entitled to file objection before the assessing officer and person aggrieved by the decision of the assessing officer can prefer appeal before the appellate authority. In this case, the complainant neither approached the assessing officer nor the appellate authority. The complainant can challenge before this Hon’ble Forum only against a final order issued by the assessing officer under Sec.126(3) of Electricity Act. Hence the complainant cannot be entertained before this Hon’ble Forum. Therefore, opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs & Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 marked. For the opposite parties DW1 to DW3 have examined and Ext.B1 and B2 marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 6. The complainant’s case is that the Division Squad of the opposite parties inspected the complainant’s premises and prepared a mahazar. On the basis of the mahazar they have issued a bill for an amount of ` 9,466.90. According to the complainant, he is regularly paying the current bills issued by the opposite parties and was using the connected load sanctioned to him. Hence he is not liable to pay the provisional bill issued to him by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant prayed for set asiding the penal bill issued to him and for allowing to he reliefs prayed for in the complaint. 7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta after inspecting the complainant’s premises. Ext.A2 is the calculation statement cum notice issued by the Sub Engineer in charge, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A3 is the provisional bill dated 28.5.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. 8. Opposite parties have cross-examined PW1. 9. The opposite parties contended that on 25.5.09 the Division Squad, Kozhencherry had inspected the complainant’s premises and detected unauthorised connected load and prepared a site mahazar. The site mahazar revealed that the complainant was using unauthorised additional load of 1480 watts against the connected load of 500 watts. On the basis of the site mahazar they have issued provisional bill with notice and calculation statement. The calculation is done as per the provisions of Electricity Act. The main contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant approached the Forum for challenging the provisional bill issued by them. The complainant can challenge before this Forum only against a final bill issued by the assessing officer. Further, the complainant is not a consumer as the beneficiary is conducting a commercial purpose. 10. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 3 witnesses for the opposite parties adduced oral evidence as DW1 to DW4 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked. Ext.B1 is the current bill dated 5.6.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.B2 is the current bill dated 7.8.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant’s counsel has been cross-examined the witnesses. 11. On going through the evidences in this case, it is pertinent to note that the Ext.A1 to A3 were issued by the opposite parties on the basis of the inspection conducted by the Division Squad of opposite parties at the premises of the complainant. As per the site mahazar prepared by the squad the complainant was using an unauthorised additional load of 1480 watts against the sanctioned load of 500 watts and they have issued the provisional bill along with notice and calculation sheet. According to the opposite parties as per Sec.126(3) of the Electricity Act 2003, if any person is aggrieved while serving notice under sub Sec.(2) shall be entitled to file objection before the assessing officer and person aggrieved by the decision of assessing officer can prefer appeal before the appellate authority. The complainant can challenge only the final bill issued by the assessing officer after hearing objection to the provisional bill and after depositing 50% of the assessed amount at the office of the 1st opposite party. The complainant has not filed any objection to the provisional bill and notice before the assessing officer as per Sec.126(3). Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. 12. The opposite parties cited the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.355/2004 and 371/2006 (2008 CTJ (CP) NCDRC) (Gujarat Electricity Board and another Vs. Madresa Abriyah Talimul Muslin Min.). In the judgment it was pointed out that, “Against the assessment order passed under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, a consumer has option either to file appeal under Sec.127 of the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer Fora by filing complaint”. The complainant has approached the Forum for challenging the provisional bill and notice issued by the opposite parties. There is no evidence from the part of the complainant that he had approached the opposite parties against the provisional bill and the Ext.B3 bill is the final bill issued by the assessing officer after hearing the objection against provisional bill. From the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in the light of the above said ruling of National Commission, we came to a conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 13. The 1st point raised is found against the complainant the other points are not considered. The interim order passed by the Forum in IA.99/09 is stand vacated from today. 14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of January, 2011. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : C.S. Daniel Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of site mahazar prepared by 4th opposite party after inspecting the complainant’s premises. A2 : Calculation statement cum notice dated 28.5.09 issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Provisional bill dated 28.5.09 for ` 9,467 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Jayakrishnan DW2 : Saji. M. Thankachan DW3 : Venugopal. V.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Current bill dated 5.6.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. B2 : Current bill dated 7.8.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Daniel. C.S, Dan & Company, College Road, Pathanamthitta. (2) The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. (4) Asst. Engineer, -do. –do. (5) Sub Engineer in Charge, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. (6) The Stock File. | 
